Advertisement

A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants

  • Ya-Ting C. YangEmail author
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the effects of teaching critical thinking skills (CTS) in a large class through asynchronous discussion forums (ADFs) with the facilitation of teaching assistants. A pretest and posttest quasi-experimental design with a comparison group was employed to validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The independent variable was the structured ADFs with two levels—without Socratic dialogues, and with Socratic dialogues, modeled and facilitated by the teaching assistants via structured ADFs, while the dependent variable was the students’ levels of CTS as measured by two different evaluations: (a) the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, to holistically examine students’ gains in their CTS, and (b) the Coding Scheme for Evaluating Critical Thinking in Computer Conferencing, to investigate students’ interaction patterns and the depth of their critical thinking (CT) demonstrated via the ADF. The evaluation data were collected from 278 college students in Taiwan. The qualitative analysis provided a detailed description of how students’ discussions moved from the lower to the higher phases of CT. Results indicated that an inspired instructor and some energetic teaching assistants who use Socratic dialogues during small-group online discussions can successfully develop students’ CTS in a large university class.

Keywords

Critical thinking Computer-mediated communication General education Large class size Graduate teaching assistants 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The funding for this research was provided by the National Science Council of Taiwan, ROC under Grant NSC92-2520-S006-001. We extend our special thanks to National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) for supporting us through a free and reliable e-learning system to make this study a success. The Academic Affairs Division of NCKU has selected this course as having the best design and implementation of an e-learning course in 2004.

References

  1. Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1–32.Google Scholar
  5. Daud, N. M., & Husin, Z. (2004). Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  9. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Duphorne, P. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2006). Discontinuities in university student experiences of learning through discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.Google Scholar
  13. Facione, P. A. (1990a, 1992). The California critical thinking skills test (CCTST): Form A (1990) and form B (1992). Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Facione, P. A. (1990b). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423.Google Scholar
  15. Facione, P. A. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a theory of question asking. Psychological Research, 43, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jeong, A. (2003). Sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.Google Scholar
  23. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  24. Maiorana, V. P. (1990–1991). The road from rote to critical thinking. Community Review, 11(1–2), 53–63.Google Scholar
  25. Marra, R., Moore, J., & Klimczak, A. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 3(2), 56–77.Google Scholar
  28. Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.Google Scholar
  29. Preston, J., & Shackelford, R. (1998). A system for improving distance and large-scale classes. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin Inroads, 30(4), 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salmon, G. (2002). Mirror, mirror, on my screen…Exploring online reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Scaffolding critical thinking in an online course: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Sing, C. C., & Khine, M. S. (2006). An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 250–261.Google Scholar
  34. Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children (Cooperative Research Project No. 2404). San Francisco: San Francisco State College.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, S. A. (2004). Socratic strategies and devil’s advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yang, Y.-T. C., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2005). Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yeh, Y. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and guided practices on preservice teachers’ changes in personal teaching efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Young, G. (1997). Adult development, therapy, and culture: A postmodern synthesis. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Education and Centre for Teacher EducationNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations